Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of British Columbians who are calling upon Parliament to renew the debate on the definition of marriage and to reaffirm its commitment, as it did in 1999, to take all necessary steps to maintain the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition signed by thousands of students from Canadian universities, particularly from New Brunswick, but also from British Columbia, Alberta and just about every Canadian province.

The petitioners are asking us to improve our student assistance program by reducing financial barriers to education. They are also asking us to work with the provinces to put in place targeted money transfers for post-secondary education, so that colleges and universities can maintain a post-secondary education system that is accessible to all those who wish to further their education.

If I were not in the House, I would be tempted to say that I support this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the citizens of Tancook Island and surrounding area on the importance of maintaining a rural post office on Tancook Island. It is absolutely essential for Canadians who live in rural Canada to have the service of the post office. It is quite often the only federal building in that area.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition signed by 2,200 people from across Canada who call upon Parliament to take whatever action is required to maintain the current definition of marriage in law in perpetuity and to prevent any court from overturning or amending that definition.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition today where the petitioners call upon Parliament to defend the traditional definition of marriage as the bond between one man and one woman. They call upon Parliament to protect this union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and to not permit it to be modified by a legislative act or by court of law.

The petitioners therefore ask Parliament to maintain the current definition of marriage.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise before the House today and submit petitions with hundreds of names of Manitoba post-secondary students.

These students call upon Parliament to enact legislation to put in place very specific measures to alleviate the debt burden of full time students, to ensure Canada's colleges and universities have sufficient resources, and to guarantee a post-secondary education that is financially accessible to all qualified persons.

Mr. Speaker, I am in receipt of some 25,000 names from citizens of London, Ontario and the area around London, Ontario. I present today the latest 1,500 such signatures that have properly gone through the process.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to do everything within its power to maintain the definition of marriage that has served our country so well since Confederation, namely, that it be the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of some of the residents of Lone Butte and 100 Mile House in my vast constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin in central British Columbia.

These citizens call upon Parliament to remember that marriage is the best foundation for families and raising children; that the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman is being challenged; that the House passed in June 1999 a motion calling for marriage to continue to be recognized as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others; and that marriage is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.

They therefore call upon Parliament to pass legislation recognizing the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

It is about the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. The petitioners state that it should be held to the same standards as any other instrument of justice by applying the principles of natural justice, the charter, and common law and that the citizens of Canada as taxpayers should enjoy all the protections provided by the law and that the tax courts in Canada recognize that taxpayers should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Therefore, the people have said in the petition that the government should introduce legislation to ensure that all Canadians have the same rights with respect to tax obligations as people accused of crimes, that is, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that relevant legislation should be amended to this end.

The petition is signed by several hundred of my constituents and people from across the country.

With regard to the dredging of Wascana Lake in Regina: ( a ) what is the total financial contribution by the government to this project; ( b ) how much in total has been pledged by the government and its representative; ( c ) what is the total amount that has been transferred to date; and ( d ) from which department and agency budgets will this funding come?

The answer is as follows: With regard to (a) On October 3, 2003, the three levels of government--national, provincial, and municipal--announced an $18 million project to deepen Wascana Lake. The Government of Canada has committed $9 million to the project, the province has committed $5 million and the City of Regina has committed $4 million. The Wascana Centre Authority will be the beneficiary of the project.

With regard to (b) A total of $18 million was pledged by three levels of government. The Government of Canada's representative is Infrastructure Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan's representative is Saskatchewan Property Management Corporation.

With regard to (c) Infrastructure Canada is currently working on the transfer of funds arrangement. Technically, the arrangement is through a contribution agreement, not a transfer . This is likely to be accomplished through a bilateral agreement between Saskatchewan and Canada. In a bilateral agreement, Saskatchewan, represented by Saskatchewan Property Management Corporation, will be responsible for paying the bills, and then will invoice the other two partners.

With regard to (d) Infrastructure Canada, as the Government of Canada's representative, will provide up to $9 million towards this project.

In December 2000, Health Canada signed a five year contract with Prairie Plant Systems Inc. The total value of the contract was $5,751,250.00. As of March 12, 2004, $3,476,399.70, GST included, had been paid to Prairie Plant Systems Inc. to grow marijuana underground in the mine at Flin Flon, Manitoba.

Since 1995 and for each fiscal year since, with respect to Technology Partnerships Canada (and including the IRAP TPC program) and the Atlantic Innovation Fund: ( a ) how many loans have been made; ( b ) what is the dollar value of these loans; ( c ) how much has actually been repaid; ( d ) how much was supposed to have been repaid based on the original agreements; ( e ) how many loans have been made to each province; ( f ) what is the dollar value of the loans in each province; ( g ) have any recipients of loans under these agreements defaulted on payments, yes or no; ( h ) how much has been written off; ( i ) how many jobs were expected to be created in each province; ( j ) how many were actually created in each province; ( k ) who has signing authority for these projects; ( l ) what other federal departments or agencies consulted prior to signing an agreement; and ( m ) what is the role of these other agencies?